The National Research Council, National Science Teachers Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Achieve are nearing completion in the development of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), a document that builds on foundations established in Science for All Americans and Benchmarks for Science Literacy (1993), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the National Science Education Standards (1996) developed by the NRC. To learn more details about the background and development of the standards, as well as the scheduled release of the standards, please review:
The first step in the development of the NGSS was to establish a framework for the science education standards to be built. The committee recommends that science education in grades K-12 be built around three major dimensions, including:
Scientific and engineering practices
Crosscutting concepts that unify the study of science and engineering through their common application across fields
Core ideas in four disciplinary areas: physical sciences; life sciences; earth and space sciences; and engineering, technology, and applications of science
The K-12 Framework for Science Education is the foundation for the Next Generation Science Standards. Each of the three dimensions of the framework are further defined with a broad set of expectations for K-12 students. This module will focus on one aspect in particular, engaging in argument from evidence, within the first dimension named scientific and engineering practices.
Dimension 1 - Scientific and Engineering Practices
Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering)
Developing and using models
Planning and carrying out investigations
Analyzing and interpreting data
Using mathematics and computational thinking
Constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions
Engaging in argument from evidence
Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information
Please review an introductory movie about the science standards named Science Unscrambled: A Framework for K-12 Science Education http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF5bCOIGd5w Presentation
Read ScienceStds.pdf
pg 60 diagram
pg 63 both scientists and engineers engage in argumentation, but they do so with different goals. In engineering, the goal of argumentation is to evaluate prospective designs and then produce the most effective design for meeting the specifications and constraints. This optimization process typically involves trade-offs between competing goals, with the consequence that there is never just one “correct” solution to a design challenge. Instead, there are a number of possible solutions, and choosing among them inevitably involves personal as well as technical and cost considerations. Therories in science meet a very different set of criteria, such as parsimony (preference for simpler solutions) and explanatory coherence (essential how well any new theory provides explanations of phenomena that fit with observations and allow predictions or inferences about the past to be made)
pg 67 diagram #7
pg 86 Practice In science the production of knowledge is dependent on a process of reasoning that requires a scientist to make a justified claim about the world. In response, other scientists attempt to identify the claim weaknesses and limitations.
pg 87 goals by grade 12
pg 88 progression of skills
Engaging in the practices of science helps students understand how scientific knowledge develops; such direct involvement gives them an appreciation of the wide range of approaches that are used to investigate, model, and explain the world. Engaging in the practices of engineering likewise helps students understand the work of engineers, as well as the links between engineering and science. Participation in these practices also helps students form an understanding of the crosscutting concepts and disciplinary ideas of science and engineering; moreover, it makes students’ knowledge more meaningful and embeds it more deeply into their worldview. At the left of the figure are activities related to empirical investigation. For scientists, their work in this sphere of activity is to draw from established theories and models and to propose extensions to theory or create new models. Often, they develop a model or hypothesis that leads to new questions to investigate or alternative explanations to consider. Both scientists and engineers use their models—including sketches, diagrams, mathematical relationships, simulations, and physical models—to make predictions about the likely behavior of a system, and they then collect data to evaluate the predictions and possibly revise the models as a result.
Between and within these two spheres of activity is the practice of evaluation, represented by the middle space. Here is an iterative process that repeats at every step of the work. Critical thinking is required, whether in developing and refining an idea (an explanation or a design) or in conducting an investigation. The dominant activities in this sphere are argumentation and critique, which often lead to further experiments and observations or to changes in proposed models, explanations, or designs. Scientists and engineers use evidence-based argumentation to make the case for their ideas, whether involving new theories or designs, novel ways of collecting data, or interpretations of evidence. They and their peers then attempt to identify weaknesses and limitations in the argument, with the ultimate goal of refining and improving the explanation or design.
In science, reasoning and argument are essential for identifying the strengths and weaknesses of a line of reasoning and for finding the best explanation for a natural phenomenon. Scientists must defend their explanations, formulate evidence based on a solid foundation of data, examine their own understanding in light of the evidence and comments offered by others, and collaborated with peers in searching for the best explanation for the phenomenon being investigated.
Argumentation is a central element addressed in all Common Core Standards. Argumentation is a critical process standard for mathematically proficient students.
Mathematically proficient students understand and use stated assumptions, definitions, and previously established results in constructing arguments. They make conjectures and build a logical progression of statements to explore the truth of their conjectures. They are able to analyze situations by breaking them into cases, and can recognize and use counterexamples. They justify their conclusions, communicate them to others, and respond to the arguments of others. They reason inductively about data, making plausible arguments that take into account the context from which the data arose. Mathematically proficient students are also able to compare the effectiveness of two plausible arguments, distinguish correct logic or reasoning from that which is flawed, and—if there is a flaw in an argument—explain what it is. Elementary students can construct arguments using concrete referents such as objects, drawings, diagrams, and actions. Such arguments can make sense and be correct, even though they are not generalized or made formal until later grades. Later, students learn to determine domains to which an argument applies. Students at all grades can listen or read the arguments of others, decide whether they make sense, and ask useful questions to clarify or improve the arguments. Source: Common Core Standards Initiative, 2012
How many dimensions make up the K-12 Framework for Science Education?
one
two
three
four
What dimension of the K-12 Framework for Science Education includes argumentation?
Scientific and engineering practices
Crosscutting concepts
Disciplinary core ideas
Practice and application
Reflection
How will the Next Generation Science Standards impact my teaching strategies?
Have I used argumentation in my teaching, and if so, how was it addressed? If not, think of one lesson that could incorporate argumentation and how the lesson could improve teaching and student learning?
Review pg 86 - 88 in the Standards for Mathematical Practice and identify one goal by grade 12 and discuss a lesson or classroom activity that supports this progression of skill.
National Research Council (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Retrieved on June 15, 2012 at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165.
The National Research Council, National Science Teachers Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Achieve are nearing completion in the development of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), a document that builds on foundations established in Science for All Americans and Benchmarks for Science Literacy (1993), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the National Science Education Standards (1996) developed by the NRC. To learn more details about the background and development of the standards, as well as the scheduled release of the standards, please review:
http://www.nextgenscience.org/standards-background-research-and-reports
http://www.nextgenscience.org/faq
http://www.nextgenscience.org/development-process
The first step in the development of the NGSS was to establish a framework for the science education standards to be built. The committee recommends that science education in grades K-12 be built around three major dimensions, including:
The K-12 Framework for Science Education is the foundation for the Next Generation Science Standards. Each of the three dimensions of the framework are further defined with a broad set of expectations for K-12 students. This module will focus on one aspect in particular, engaging in argument from evidence, within the first dimension named scientific and engineering practices.
Dimension 1 - Scientific and Engineering Practices
Please review an introductory movie about the science standards named Science Unscrambled: A Framework for K-12 Science Education http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF5bCOIGd5w
Presentation
Read ScienceStds.pdf
Engaging in the practices of science helps students understand how scientific knowledge develops; such direct involvement gives them an appreciation of the wide range of approaches that are used to investigate, model, and explain the world. Engaging in the practices of engineering likewise helps students understand the work of engineers, as well as the links between engineering and science. Participation in these practices also helps students form an understanding of the crosscutting concepts and disciplinary ideas of science and engineering; moreover, it makes students’ knowledge more meaningful and embeds it more deeply into
their worldview.
At the left of the figure are activities related to empirical investigation. For scientists, their work in this sphere of activity is to draw from established theories and models and to propose extensions to theory or create new models. Often, they develop a model or hypothesis that leads to new questions to investigate or alternative explanations to consider. Both scientists and engineers use their models—including sketches, diagrams, mathematical relationships, simulations, and physical models—to make predictions about the likely behavior of a system, and they then collect data to evaluate the predictions and possibly revise the models as a result.
Between and within these two spheres of activity is the practice of evaluation, represented by the middle space. Here is an iterative process that repeats at every step of the work. Critical thinking is required, whether in developing and refining an idea (an explanation or a design) or in conducting an investigation. The dominant activities in this sphere are argumentation and critique, which often lead to further experiments and observations or to changes in proposed models, explanations, or designs. Scientists and engineers use evidence-based argumentation
to make the case for their ideas, whether involving new theories or designs, novel ways of collecting data, or interpretations of evidence. They and their peers then attempt to identify weaknesses and limitations in the argument, with the ultimate goal of refining and improving the explanation or design.
In science, reasoning and argument are essential for identifying the strengths and weaknesses of a line of reasoning and for finding the best explanation for a natural phenomenon. Scientists must defend their explanations, formulate evidence based on a solid foundation of data, examine their own understanding in light of the evidence and comments offered by others, and collaborated with peers in searching for the best explanation for the phenomenon being investigated.
Argumentation is a central element addressed in all Common Core Standards. Argumentation is a critical process standard for mathematically proficient students.
Mathematically proficient students understand and use stated assumptions, definitions, and previously established results in constructing arguments. They make conjectures and build a logical progression of statements to explore the truth of their conjectures. They are able to analyze situations by breaking them into cases, and can recognize and use counterexamples. They justify their conclusions, communicate them to others, and respond to the arguments of others. They reason inductively about data, making plausible arguments that take into account the context from which the data arose. Mathematically proficient students are also able to compare the effectiveness of two plausible arguments, distinguish correct logic or reasoning from that which is flawed, and—if there is a flaw in an argument—explain what it is. Elementary students can construct arguments using concrete referents such as objects, drawings, diagrams, and actions. Such arguments can make sense and be correct, even though they are not generalized or made formal until later grades. Later, students learn to determine domains to which an argument applies. Students at all grades can listen or read the arguments of others, decide whether they make sense, and ask useful questions to clarify or improve the arguments.
Source: Common Core Standards Initiative, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC4OG11zOC8 starting at 9:40 - 13
Argumentation in the Language Arts Standards
W.6.1. Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence.
http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/english-language-arts-standards/writing-6-12/grade-6/
http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/english-language-arts-standards/writing-6-12/grade-9-10/
Practice
Reflection
References:
Common Core Standards Initiative (2012). Standards for Mathematical Practice. Retrieved on July 11, 2012 at http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/mathematics/introduction/
standards-for-mathematical-practice/
National Research Council (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Retrieved on June 15, 2012 at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165.
Additional Reading:
http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/constructing-arguments-room-for-debate-and-the-common-core-standards/